After reading the last chapter, which of the activist groups did you you find most successful/ the one that you found most appealing and why?
Next, on page 153, he says, "human rights are not a euphemism for gay rights. We cannot pick and choose human rights". What are your thoughts on this quote? How do you understand what he is trying to say?
Carolyn & Megan
Throughout LGTB history, as a class we have seen that protests for these communities have not always been successful because they have not been all inclusive. After all, people of color face oppression from stereotypes which leads them to be further prosecuted, even if the severity of the crime was relatively low. In class I have reiterated that in my opinion for movements to be successful, the oppression that applies to both whites and minority groups should be identified not only for equal LGTB rights, but to also combat racial stereotypes. I really like the ending to this book. In all honesty I think any activist group attempting to stick up for equality deserves credibility, even the ones in the past that were not successful because it gives us a chance to improve on them. The ending could not have been more perfect, "The challenge is not only to tackle the punishment of sexual and gender deviance through the criminal legal system, but also to call into question and challenge the multiple and interlocking systems of inequality that remain, even as formal forms of discrimination begin to fall" (Mogul,157). In other words, the authors' message is for society to be consistent in identifying problems so there is a continual call for action. Regardless of the numerous activist groups out there, it is agreeable that they are all the same in the sense that they are trying to promote equality.
ReplyDeleteThe one aspect that stood out most for me in this book though was not the activist groups. In addition to activist efforts, "Safe Spaces agree to be visibly identified as places that provide an affirming environment for queer community members, and to prevent and intervene in racist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic violence" (Mogul, 150). This I believe will enhance the activist movements. They are after all based on the ability of individuals to express themselves and Safe Spaces allows this to happen. Not only can members intervene with issues that apply directly to them, they can express their feelings which is limited to society because of how most people envision the idea of normality. Having alternate perspectives is essential, and with the combination of having an all inclusive community and addressing issues, this would make movements successful. What it is important to remember though as the authors' points out, is consistency. Racial oppression has been around for a long time, meaning that it cannot be dismissed so easily.
I thought all of these organizations were necessary and important, but I was particularly struck by the explanation of FIERCE, an organization that works to help people survive in systems of oppression as well as reform it. The authors write, "FIERCE conducts 'know your rights' trainings for queer youth, co-organizes a 'copwatch' with ALP during annual Pride celebrations, and advocate ... for changes to the NYPD Patrol Guide to address police misconduct against transgender people" (148). This is important work, I think, as the authors suggest in this final chapter that there is a difference between tolerance and liberation, that it is not enough to just exist in a peaceful tension within a system that still works against you. Rather, liberation is the true goal, but it is not always easy to survive in such an environment, and even though we are focused on liberation as a goal, it is important to be mindful about the little things that can be done each and every day to help everyone get by.
ReplyDeleteI like this quote, but I have a little bit of difficulty understand exactly what it means. The structure of the sentence is confusing for me. I can't tell if they are attempting to separate "human rights" from "gay rights" or say that they are not separate from one another. I guess what troubles me is the implication of both of these meanings? Which is better? Are gay rights and human rights to be conflated or separated? I am drawn towards conflation, but after reading this book I am worried that - as is typically the case - our understanding of one sphere of needed justice will exclude our vision of the rest. How do we consider human rights when we are so prone to ignore the intersections where we exist?
The group that stood out to me the most was FIERCE. I thought it was really smart of them to conduct “know your rights” training, and I liked how they conducted many operations, like a “cop watch”, with many other local groups. I find it very smart and often needed for more organizations to work with each other. Not many activists groups are willing to work with other activist groups, which often ends up hurting both groups and both of the group’s goals. In my opinion the more people that one can get to concentrate on an issue, the more likely it is to being solved. I also really liked the “know your rights” training because knowing the law during times of conflict and knowing the law when the police are attempting to mess with you, is crucial. I honestly think everyone should go through “know your rights” training to be better prepared to handle more situations that may arise.
ReplyDeleteFor the quote, I think he is trying to say is that human rights are basic and fundamental and are not up for debate. I also think he is trying to say that gay rights may be slightly different from basic human rights. Undoubtedly some rights do intersect but not all. I also think he is trying to say that human rights are not to be argued and nobody, no matter of their gender, race, class, sexuality or religion should be denied human rights.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the late post, Y’all!
Alright, so first off, this was my favorite book we read this semester, hands down. No diss to the other books, they were amazing as well!!! I think the book came to a good conclusion, the different activist groups gave me a little hope that people are working towards a change for a better future, right? One of the groups I found interesting, maybe not necessarily the most appealing, was the “conservative gay Log Cabin Republicans (LCR)”. I guess I didn’t realize there were groups out there like that. Anyways, part of their whole groups ideals were that the death penalty should be used in cases where there was a hate crime against someone who is homosexual, though many other groups had a lot of counters to that. Is that really what the death penalty is though? Just a symbol for strength and power, something used to make an example of people? Sad. They should just get thrown in jail forever and suffer, just a thought.
Anyways, another group I thought was doing wonderful things was Project UNSHACKLE. They were working with HIV/AIDS victims to bridge existsing issues with HIV and connect them to incarceration (something I had never pondered before, but it really is a huge issue). They also work towards policy change, yes!
As for the quote, I ended up thinking way too hard about it. Is the author saying we shouldnt use “gay rights” because we are all human and no matter what we should all have human rights? Or are they instead saying we should say “gay rights” because we should put emphasis on the fact that they often lack access to basic human rights? Hmm. Also, loved the discussion in class on “the system cant be broken because it was never whole” (I think that was Fatima’s line, gold star!).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this section I found that one of the groups that was extremely interesting to me was FIERCE. What I particularly found interesting about FIERCE was its ability to remain a prominent voice and provide a sustained response through action about the policing of youth of color. This I think is very important because of how marginalized these members of the community are and how through organizing they were able to provide many different campaigns and movements for these people.
ReplyDeleteAlso, this group chose to serve not only with the young vulnerable members of the LGBTQ community, but it also focused on intersectionality and how a lot of these injustices are intertwined. For example, they conduct "know your rights" campaigns to better empower and strengthen the LGBTQ youth of color who often are held more vulnerable because of racial biases in society (148). This I think is often neglected by society as people of color are often forgotten in these movements and young people especially.
Moving forward then, the quote on page 153 was difficult for me to grasp. I read it a few times trying to understand it to the best of my ability. After reading I began to reflect on what I believe it means. I believe that Julie Dorf was making the argument that although human rights and gay rights are intertwined, it is important to recognize gay rights in their whole. Too often people may try to bandaid rights movements under human rights but without the momentum to effectively distinguish the importance of gay rights as its own recognizable movement things may not change. This may be a result of how gay rights are often neglected under human rights and without proper recognition as a genuine issue gay rights would not advance.
I thought that all of these activist groups were doing amazing things for the gay community. However, I thought that the Safe house, was the most impactful. This group focuses on providing a safe environment for LGBT people in their homes and in their work space. When i read that this activist group does this I thought "Wow, we really need this". I never really stopped to think about how people who are LGBT are treated in their day to day lives. In my own work environment, we are all accepting. It does not matter if you are gay or straight or black or white or whatever is in between. At my job we treated each other the same. because of this, I never thought about how there are places who are not so accepting. Safe house is really needed in order to provide LGBT with a safe place to be who they are because sadly in our society there are still people who judge others based on what they define themselves as.
ReplyDeleteTo me this quote is making the statement that everyone is deserving of human rights. However, when we attempt to say that "gay rights are the same as human rights" it is making a statement that this particular group should not be singled out as special. In some sense, this is wrong because gay people are being attacked and are suffering a different way than other groups.
After reading this chapter and looking back at our past reading especially Angels in America I found UNSHACKLE to be most interesting as well as most important. This group brings the issues of AIDS to the front but not only those out on the street but those in prisons. I have been taking a class about the death penalty and prisons just makes me focus on those issues more. people in prisons have the worst life. They are trapped in a schedule that cannot choose and while they may have commit a horrible crime they are still human and they deserve dignity. UNSHACKLE made the connection between AIDS and the prison system. They find the connection between abuse in jail and AIDS. They are working towards justice which makes them all the more important because once someone goes to jail they become unimportant but this group finds them very important. This group is amazing to me.
ReplyDeleteNow the quote to me means that human rights effects all people and an injustice does the same even if we do not realize it therefore we all should be working to stop injustices. When we focus on the 'we' instead of the 'I' amazing things can happen. Injustices will start to decrease. Human rights will be for all people instead of those who are born with privilege.